Aquarium,

I have a job.

Again, you all just define GOAT differently than I do. Don't know what's so hard to understand about this.

Peak for me is watching a player and saying "He's playing at a level higher than I've ever seen". And one year of it is more than enough for me.

If tennis ended right now, and I was talking about it years down the road, I'd probably say something like "Federer/Nadal/whoever had the greatest career of all time, but Djokovic in 2011 was the best I ever saw"

Apparently thinking like this makes some people madadad

Are you really this dense?

Sampras would have 100 grand slams today if Fed, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Kuerten, Nadal, Murray, and Novak simply didn't exist. He would even get that French he goes to sleep dreaming about!

Oh, and the answer is 0. How about in 5 years we ask why Nadal isn't beating the faster (and probably healthier due to style) new guy on tour. Let's ask the same thing for Novak.

I am either being trolled or leveled.

I don't think Novak is playing at higher level than either Nadal or Federer has done when they were dominating. I think people simply think he is because of his W/L record. Watching Federer in his prime is still the highest quality tennis I have seen from anyone in my lifetime.

It is hard to do this because athletes evolve, racquets evolve, even the surfaces change and evolve. 20 years from now, you will be watching a better tennis player if that 2031 tennis player were to play the 2011 version of Novak simply based on knowledge, better coaching, nutrtition and fitness, training, and equipment. This doesn't mean that 2011 Novak is worse relative to his field that he had to play against. This is the recency bias I don't agree with. There have been tennis players that have transformed the game, they are that important - Novak is just good, he isn't doing anything that is making the other players revamp their style to be able to play with him. It is impossible to know that Novak is playing better tennis than Borg fwiw.

So much fail in these posts. How can anybody punish Roger Federer for beating people not in their prime but then reward others for beating him in non prime.

Also, don't want to post much more on it as it will surely derail, but saying a player asking for medical is a 'bitch move' is ridiculous.

These aren't roman gladiators ffs. If he feels serious pain or thinks that it could be something bad, have a doctor look at it or stretch it out. Every sport in the world does this. They played a lot of tennis in a short time. If Nadal was in pain or felt like something might have gotten injured, he'd be silly not to ask for advice or take a minute. These guys have their health and career to worry about. He's not there to suffer and endure bad injuries just so you don't have to go 5 minutes without entertainment.

If anything, the fact that he endured what was probably really serious pain and won the match is impressive. Saying he 'faked it' only helps your agenda. Thought it was pretty obv in the 3rd that he was in ridiculous amounts of pain at points. Sorry he didn't suffer more for you!

perfectly reasonable IMO.

I'd add in Sampras and Andre (in the discussion of amazing tennis, not necessarily in the Fed/Nadal class). I'm 33 and saw those guys at their peak as well.

C-Vig,

What don't you get about what I said? It's the timing of it all and the player in question who did it.

What I got was that you feel you correctly assessed (as a pro tennis player yourself) the pain and potential injury involved in the situation.

I'll whine about people faking with the best of em, happens in soccer all the time and in the NBA too (Pierce). But given the week the players had with the back-to-backs, and how the third set looked, he can get stretched out or pop a pill if he feels severe pain or thinks he might injure himself. I'm not gonna call him a bitch for it.

Djokovic has form for this kind of thing though.

no, you're just over-thinking it. and underthinking it I guess. either way, you're not adjusting for competition correctly.

goat is about more than just peak dont see how this is debatable at all(if murray rapes in form djoko at the aussie open, murray = goat?)

the most important aspects without thinking about it too much:
peak, continuity, ability to adjust

- roger is an alltime great in all those categories
- nadal had a great peak, good continuity but his inability to adjust makes it impossible to come even close to roger in this regard(nadal wont be able to compete once his phyisical level drops)
- djoko great peak but the rest is left to prove

Has anyone ever won all 4 in a year?

So you were serious. Interesting.

Well, you aren't adjusting for age. Fed shouldn't be winning right now, the fact that he is occasionally winning or coming close is a testament to him, not Novak and Rafa.

Let's use Sampras for comparison, top 3 ever. Serve and volley game, easy on the body, many points lasting simply his serve or his serve and a simple put away at the net. He won one slam at 29 and then his last slam at 31 when (by fate) he didn't have to beat better than a 5 seed to get to Agassi in the finals - then it was rivalry time. Sampras, like Federer is the exception, not the norm and it still shows the decline, albeit quick decline.

So stop with the 'oh my God Fed is getting beat by the greatest ever!' nonsense. He is getting beat by extremely good player(s) at a declining point in his career. I bet you guys were saying the same thing when Marbury took Jordan off the dribble when MJ was with the Wizards - 'Starbury is the GOAT!'

lmao its "impossible for nadal to come close to federer" alright buddy

listen its completely obvious that federer is still close to, and capable of, playing as good as he ever has, it's just not good enough and fed fanboys are in denial.

08 wimbledon and 09 aussie open peak nadal beats federer in two close matches that everyone likes to dismiss because fed "was past his peak." but what happens when nadal goes away? fed dominates majors like its 2005 again (wins french/wimbledon/shud have won us open but is huge choker/wins aussie)

nadal comes back, djokavic improves, all of a sudden fed is "past his prime again"

of course he's not gonna have ridiculous years like 05/06 anymore, like johnnymac said he's never gonna be able to get himself up for all those events, its all about the majors

i mean look at his GS results, outside of a choke to Tsonga every single one of his losses has come to Nadal or Djokavic in his last 5 and since Aussie Open 2008 he has either won or lost to nadal/djok in 12/16 of grand slams! you don't think there's anything to that?

reading comprehension, how does it work?

Have wanted to ask you that like 5 times on this page, but I'm not here to troll

it is mindblowing that roger still playing on such a ridiculous high level at the age of 28-30 gets counted against him, I want the stuff you guys are smoking

Geoff,

Rafa gave peak Fed fits. Some of you just compare everything in broad strokes instead of what breaking it down - this is why h2h is a poor indicator of GOAT. Rafa gave Fed fits b/c it is extremely difficult to handle the ball high with a one handed backhand. Rafa has exploited this for years. I agree with you - but if you say 08 Wimbly then I can always say what about 06 and 07 Wimbly?

It is widely recognized that Fed is a different player now, he even chooses rallies to chase. He has worked on his service game to eliminate length of rallies. You can come up with anything you want but Fed is declining and a different player then the 08 Wimbly/09 Aussie player you mentioned. And there is a pretty obvious reason he doesn't play much outside of majors anymore...the dude rests his old ass to be able to make it through the biggest tournaments and we have people in here 'it is COMPLETELY OBVIOUS Fed is capable of playing like he always has!' lol.

Such hate on Fed for a dude that is like the Greg Maddux of the sport. I think it goes unnoticed because IRL 30 is young and consciously you watch Fed playing and don't immediately think of the miles on the tires b/c of how young these guys are when they turn pro or start the path to turn pro. 30 is freaking old in Tennis.

this really is only tangential to my point(s) which are:

- Djoker faced better competition this year than Federer ever did
- given his record against better competition, Djoker 2011 is the best season ever

and in addition, I think wrt to Federer his A game is still extremely high, though he probably plays his B and C game a whole lot more than he used to. he isn't "occasionally" winning he is still the 3rd best player in the world, and I would wage 2011 Federer is as good as anybody 2005 Federer played against

in before the "why doesn't Fed switch to 2 handed backhand?" trolls.

Djokovič vs Nadal&Roger this year is 10-1(64-2 overall) for him. That is impressive.That is got to be the best season that any player could achive.But that doen't make him the best of all time.

Roger
.
.
.
.
Nadal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Djokovič

The fact that you say Fed plays his B and C game more than he used to should signal that you to see he is declining. The fact that he is the 3rd best player in the world right now at this age is remarkable. If in fact 2011 Fed is as good as anyone 2005 Fed played against isn't a knock on his competition but once again discussing how damn good Federer really is, how his decline is higher than anybody in the history of the sport.

Everyone is looking at this backwards. I watched the Fed/Djok semifinal match and it continued to solidify my thought that Fed is the GOAT.

LOL